Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
JHF  
#1 Posted : 05 July 2024 20:41:50(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
JHF

Hi all, if a (small) fire starts on site - record as an accident or a near miss? Probably an accident?

Roundtuit  
#2 Posted : 05 July 2024 20:53:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Near Miss

Accident is something happening unexpectedly and unintentionally resulting in injury or damage without apparent or deliberate cause.

Fires will always have an apparent and/or deliberate cause.

Roundtuit  
#3 Posted : 05 July 2024 20:53:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Near Miss

Accident is something happening unexpectedly and unintentionally resulting in injury or damage without apparent or deliberate cause.

Fires will always have an apparent and/or deliberate cause.

JHF  
#4 Posted : 05 July 2024 21:36:45(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
JHF

The fire caused damage and "loss," were not sure at this stage what caused it. 

Kate  
#5 Posted : 06 July 2024 08:23:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

I'd call it in an accident (an unplanned event that caused harm, damage or loss).

Whether or not there is an identifiable cause is not usually a criterion for something being classified as an accident - the whole point of accident investigation is to find out the causes of accidents.

JHF  
#6 Posted : 06 July 2024 12:24:34(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
JHF

Thanks Kate, I have pondered over this point for some time, I can see it maybe a near miss, but looks more likley an accident (to me). As you mention - damage, injury or loss (the fire caused loss, of product). There were two fire appliances called, site manager said it was only a small fire / smouldering - really!

peter gotch  
#7 Posted : 06 July 2024 13:00:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Hi JHF - does it actually matter how you classify it?

Why not think of it as an opportunity to investigate and look for ways of improving?

thanks 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 08/07/2024(UTC)
JHF  
#8 Posted : 06 July 2024 13:44:03(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
JHF

Hi Peter, it only matters as we make use of a software based health and safety system. Accidents are recorded different to near misses (they take you down different "routes"). They are all opportunities to investigate. 

Kate  
#9 Posted : 06 July 2024 16:21:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

Some software systems I've used give fire its own category.

You will need to do what fits your software.  If  the accident category leads to a question about damage or loss (not just about injury), then that's where you will need to record the loss of product.

If on the other hand it requires you to state what injury happened, then you will need to enter it as a near miss (on the basis that it could have caused injury but didn't).

peter gotch  
#10 Posted : 07 July 2024 13:05:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Hi JHF

OK, so you are bound by some software solution.

If that solution doesn't give you the opportunity for the same learning whichever way you categorise the event, is it the right software solution for you?

Many years ago, I was asked to develop an incident investigation package for a Client who were tied to a proprietary package. They knew it wasn't working for them, so my brief was to try and train their staff how to use it better, whilst at the same time offering alterenative methods of investigation.

One very senior member of the Client's organisation attending one of the courses explained how they were getting around the issues with the system.

Words to the effect of:

"We do the investigation via a different method and then complete the report using the proprietary system in reverse".

To which my comment was:

"That's cheating, but it's pragmatic."

So, perhaps you could be pragmatic and decide which category to define this incident and see where the system drills down during investigation.

THEN define the incident the other way and see how that investigation goes.

Finally you pick which ever categorisation helps you learn most?

Or you could just do a proper root cause analysis and then get the "system" to fit with your results.

firesafety101  
#11 Posted : 08 July 2024 11:32:32(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

In my humble opinion a fire is a FIRE and should be recorded as such.

Why not introduce an Incident Reporting Book for recording such as this.

Not all fires are Accidents or Malicious ignition.  There are Other causes such as lightning strikes (Act of God) and sunlight shining on glass in a field of dry hay.

Roundtuit  
#12 Posted : 08 July 2024 12:39:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: JHF Go to Quoted Post
The fire caused damage and "loss," were not sure at this stage what caused it.

But there will be a cause.

discarded cigarette end, dumped glass bottle, embers blowing through from a neighbours bonfire, "act of god", frayed electrical cabling, overloaded circuit, "spontaneous" combustion from a reaction or microbiological overheating, disgruntled (ex) employee, vape battery, laptop/e-bike/e-scooter battery & charger, wayward fire work, covered electrical heater, hot works.........

Roundtuit  
#13 Posted : 08 July 2024 12:39:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: JHF Go to Quoted Post
The fire caused damage and "loss," were not sure at this stage what caused it.

But there will be a cause.

discarded cigarette end, dumped glass bottle, embers blowing through from a neighbours bonfire, "act of god", frayed electrical cabling, overloaded circuit, "spontaneous" combustion from a reaction or microbiological overheating, disgruntled (ex) employee, vape battery, laptop/e-bike/e-scooter battery & charger, wayward fire work, covered electrical heater, hot works.........

thunderchild  
#14 Posted : 08 July 2024 13:47:02(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
thunderchild

We would investgate this as an incident, if there is no injury and an accident if someone is harmed.

We tend to look at accidents have harm to people, incident have harm to property / object, near miss is something that could have happene but did not result in harm to person or property / object.

thanks 1 user thanked thunderchild for this useful post.
Martin Fieldingt on 08/07/2024(UTC)
Messey  
#15 Posted : 08 July 2024 17:04:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Messey

If a piece of software dictates your H&S policy, procedures and incident data capturing, then perhaps you have the wrong software ???????

thanks 2 users thanked Messey for this useful post.
Roundtuit on 08/07/2024(UTC), peter gotch on 09/07/2024(UTC)
firesafety101  
#16 Posted : 09 July 2024 10:29:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

Originally Posted by: JHF Go to Quoted Post
The fire caused damage and "loss," were not sure at this stage what caused it.

But there will be a cause.

discarded cigarette end, dumped glass bottle, embers blowing through from a neighbours bonfire, "act of god", frayed electrical cabling, overloaded circuit, "spontaneous" combustion from a reaction or microbiological overheating, disgruntled (ex) employee, vape battery, laptop/e-bike/e-scooter battery & charger, wayward fire work, covered electrical heater, hot works.........

I forgot to mention "spark from passing locomotive".  Messey will remember that one. haha


thanks 1 user thanked firesafety101 for this useful post.
Messey on 09/07/2024(UTC)
Pirellipete  
#17 Posted : 09 July 2024 12:09:34(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Pirellipete

several of the larger multi-national company's I've worked with will only classify a Near Miss if there is no injury and no damage

A fire would create damage.

I'm in the 'Incident' camp on this one as Accident's would generally have some system/procedural/human failing and are considered 'Preventable' by many organisations, (Shell's ethos is that all accidents are preventable)

peter gotch  
#18 Posted : 09 July 2024 16:30:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Hi Pirellipete

Let's not get into a debate about whether "All accidents are preventable" on this thread!

By all means start a new thread if you wish.

Michdare  
#19 Posted : 22 July 2024 12:11:10(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Michdare

I did call it an accident and why? Going by the definition accident is an undesired event that results in harm to people, damage to property, or loss to process. while near miss an unplanned, unwanted event that had the potential to lead to injury, damage or loss (but did not, in fact, do so). so the result of fire should determine if it its an accident of near miss besides if fire occurs or starts but hardly can a fire start without causing  at least damages or more ,although the level of damages may depend on the time of the fire before its been put to a stop. and so far damage occur it cant be categorise as near miss. Also investigations we help in getting fact and accurate data which will help to reach a decision.

Roundtuit  
#20 Posted : 22 July 2024 12:42:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Please clarify the difference between undesired and unwanted as your definitions seem to infer these as unique and distinguishable.

Roundtuit  
#21 Posted : 22 July 2024 12:42:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Please clarify the difference between undesired and unwanted as your definitions seem to infer these as unique and distinguishable.

Users browsing this topic
Guest (3), Team.IOSH
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.